Is Ability Grouping the Way to Go or Should it Go Away?

Ability Grouping

Is ability grouping the way to go, or should it go away?

Whether or not ability grouping is an effective strategy for the instruction of students of different academic abilities is a hotly debated issue, with divergent evidence. Some research has indicated that grouping students according to ability promotes increased achievement, while other research has demonstrated that stratifying students according to achievement has detrimental effects. This study aims at evaluating whether students in grouped vs. non-grouped learning situations differ in academic and personal factors, and whether differences also exist within the grouped situation between low and high-ability students.

Introduction and Literature Review

Ability grouping in schools has been a continuously debated topic among teachers, administrators and researchers. Whether it is beneficial or not to separate students according to aptitude or ability level has been extensively discussed and researched, and evidence has been provided in support of both sides of the argument. The rationale behind ability grouping is that segregating students according to academic ability improves achievement. Research has demonstrated minimal differences in outcomes of standardized tests and examination performance between schools with ability grouping and those without. However, other research has found significant differences in achievement between schools with ability grouping and those without, with some studies demonstrating the success of ability grouping and others demonstrating its failure (Ireson & Hallam, 1999). Does ability grouping matter? Does is significantly impact the academic achievement and self-esteem of students? If so, in what direction? Does the existing research support the practice of ability grouping, or demonstrate its ineffectiveness?

It is often believed that grouping pupils according to ability contributes to raising standards. Ability grouping is practiced widely throughout schools to some extent. In a study by Hallam et al. (2003), it was found that schools predominantly adopt within class ability groupings, either mixed or ability grouped, for most subjects. The practice of ability grouping was found to be most common in mathematics, followed by English and science. The implementation of ability grouping was found to increase as pupils progressed throughout school. If ability grouping is so widely accepted, why is it surrounded with so much controversy?

There are several reasons why the practice of ability grouping is shrouded with controversy. Borland et al. (2002) offer some suggestions as to why this topic is so often debated. First, ability grouping is practiced in response to individual differences among students. Controversy is often elicited in many facets of life when the issue involves differences in ability, especially in this case, where differences are measured by standardized tests. A second reason for concern regarding ability grouping is that the differences emphasized in ability grouping often tie in with social issues, such as socio-economic class, race, ethnicity, and gender. Thirdly, the term ability grouping does not refer to one type of grouping, but encompasses several types of learning arrangements. These grouping arrangements range from tracking and homogeneous grouping, to heterogeneous grouping and flexible grouping. All of these types of ability groupings function by dividing students up according to certain criteria, but they differ in severity of segregation and criteria used.

Tracking is the most extreme form of ability grouping (Borland et al., 2002). This type of grouping involves sorting pupils according to a standard measure of achievement or ability, such as achievement tests, IQ, or GPA. Pupils are arranged into "tracks" ranging from the highest ability to the lowest ability, and often remain in these homogeneous groupings for the entirety of their schooling, regardless of any performance differences between subjects. Also, mobility between tracks is rarely possible, which results in students remaining in the same track throughout their education, irrespective of changes in academic, personal or social factors.

Another problem with tracking is that it is usually based on standardized test, such as IQ tests, which have been found to discriminate according to race and socio-economic status (Borland et al. 2002). Therefore, in diverse schools, upper tracks are composed mainly of middle and upper-middle class Asian and White students, while the lower tracks are disproportionately composed of lower class Black children. This is a major cause for concern due to the possibility of students being tracked inaccurately. In addition, IQ does not provide an accurate indication about students' current instructional needs, and grouping according to IQ without differentiation in curriculum stratifies students, and is not in the best interest of their education.

With tracking aside, there are other forms of ability grouping that have more support (Borland et al., 2002). The most innocuous and widespread type of ability grouping occurs when teachers use within class, heterogeneous grouping to group students in their mixed ability classrooms for instruction in different subjects. This is a very common practice often used by most elementary school teachers, who divide their classes up into two or more math or reading groups. This practice is widely accepted due to general acknowledgement that some children have better comprehension than others, or are at different levels in the curriculum. Therefore, in a heterogeneous classroom, exclusive whole class instruction is often considered to be ineffective and inefficient.

Flexible grouping is a type of ability grouping that has shown promise, and is advocated by many within the gifted education field (Borland et al., 2002). Flexible grouping is the process of grouping students according to their current performance levels on a subject-by-subject basis. This type of ability grouping allows for the provision of instruction that meets the students' current needs. Flexible grouping is better than tracking because students are grouped appropriately differently according to different subjects, not one IQ test. This is more realistic than the underlying assumption in tracking that all students in a track are at the same level in every subject. Flexible grouping is also superior to tracking in its ability to accommodate to changes in the needs of students, motivationally, academically, and developmentally. Tracking is inherently based on the assumption that students are stratified into high and low levels across the board. On the other hand, flexible grouping is based on the idea that students should be grouped according to their current needs in various subjects, not according to their overall "achievement."

However, flexible grouping is not put into practice that easily. Administratively, scheduling becomes difficult if flexible grouping is extended to all subjects. Also, the success of flexible grouping depends on greater acceptance of different curriculum within heterogeneously grouped classes, and allocation of more material and human resources.

There are several misconceptions and misinterpretations commonly held concerning ability grouping. Fiedler et al. (2002) discussed commonly held myths surrounding ability grouping in an attempt to emphasize practical realities in order to encourage schools to provide equality of opportunity rather than sameness in experience for all pupils, with a focus on the needs of gifted students. The first myth uncovered by Fiedler et al. (2002) is that tracking and ability grouping are the same thing. This, of course, is not true, and the differences between tracking and other types of ability grouping are evident, as discussed previously.

The second myth addressed by Fiedler et al. (2002) is that ability grouping is elitist. Some may argue that placing gifted students in groups may lead to snobbery, but the authors of this paper maintain the contrary. The authors suggest that unless gifted students are placed in situations where they can be challenged by intellectual peers, the chances of them developing an elitist attitude might be expected to increase. Moreover, the authors also argue that students need to develop a realistic appraisal of their own ability through comparison, and this comparison is more likely to be accurate when made with others of similar abilities.

A third myth addressed by the authors is that ability grouping inevitably discriminates against students of ethnic and racial minorities. The authors explain how Educators of gifted students have made great strides in changing identification methods. Great changes are being made to overcome the inequities of reliance on standardized test score data. The trend is moving away from standardized tests and toward improved approaches that involve evaluating the behaviors of pupils for indications of gifted potential.

The fourth myth discussed by the authors is that grouping by ability does not result in improved achievement or learning for gifted students. This myth is refuted by evidence that indicates how gifted students benefit affectively and cognitively by working with other gifted students. Grouping gifted and talented students with differentiated curriculum results in higher academic achievement and better academic attitudes. This grouping of gifted students has also been found to result in no decline in attitudes or achievement for the students who remain in regular heterogeneous classrooms. Moreover, Fiedler et al. (2002) indicate that grade-level achievement tests fail to reveal growth or improvement for students who already perform at the top of their class. This occurs because these top students have reached the ceiling of the test, which are the highest attainable scores for that age group. The only way to determine actual gains in achievement for these exceptional students is through the administration of instruments designed for older students.

The fifth myth exposed by Fiedler et al. (2002) is the belief that the provision of heterogeneously grouped, cooperative learning situations is most effective for the achievement of all students, including the gifted. The authors argue that gifted children need regular encounters with challenging material in order to learn how to learn, and without exposure to challenging material, gifted students may have difficulties in developing study skills necessary for success in future academic endeavours.

The sixth, and final, myth explained by Fiedler et al. (2002) is that the mere presence of gifted students in all classrooms provides a positive influence for others and it improves the climate of the classroom. As the authors explain, research indicates that students model their behavior on the behavior of others who are of similar ability and who are coping well in school. Furthermore, heterogeneous grouping may in fact have negative effects on all students in the classroom, including those who are gifted. In closing, the authors stressed the importance of equal opportunity in actualizing potential among students over the requirement for students to have the same experiences.

The bulk of current research has highlighted the positive effects that some level of ability may have on student achievement. A study by Shields (2002) compared attitudes and perceptions of students in homogeneous vs. heterogeneous classrooms. In this study, the researcher compared various measures for fifth and eighth grade students in both homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms. The measures studied included academic achievement as well as several measures of perceptions, including perceptions of themselves as learners, of their school experience and of the attitudes and behaviors of their teachers. The findings of this study suggested that homogeneous classes might serve the needs of gifted students without detrimental effects to the other students who remain in heterogeneous classrooms. Therefore, the author maintains that existing research clearly shows that some extent of homogeneous grouping benefits gifted students in terms of academic achievement, attitudes, and school experience. Furthermore, research demonstrates that students placed appropriately in regular, heterogeneous classrooms do not suffer adverse social or emotional effects when academically gifted students are placed in separate homogeneous classes.

The ineffectiveness of the heterogeneous classroom has been expressed by several educators and researchers. Benson (2002) suggests that in order to best serve students, teachers need to develop and adjust their expectations and strategies according to the various groups and learning styles that are represented. The author argues that in theory, teachers of heterogeneous classrooms should resource resources and support from colleagues with knowledge of how to best serve students across the achievement spectrum. However, in reaility, Benson argues that this support structure does not exist, and teachers are left to deal with situations to the best of their knowledge and abilities. This generally results in teachers teaching at a level appropriate for the average student in the middle of the spectrum. Furthermore, students at the extremes of the achievement spectrum may not receive the appropriate type or level of instruction. The author concludes that the heterogeneous, inclusive classroom is not the best way of meeting the needs of all students.

In support of ability grouping, and article in Gifted Child Today Magazine (2001) outlined 9 realities, supported by research, regarding the effects of grouped classrooms. The authors suggest that grouping is a commonplace of the real world, and that ability grouping only serves to prepare students for this reality.

The nine realities were outlined as follows:

Reality 1: Approximately 35% of adults work at home independently and select friends with similar interests and occupations.

Reality 2: Group placement is a result of students' performance, rather than skin color or economic class.

Reality 3: "Effective" teachers of groups with varying ability levels may have different characteristics.

Reality 4: To ensure success, students tend to model individuals that are most similar to their own level.

Reality 5: Flexible forms of ability groups include within-class grouping, cluster grouping, cross-grade grouping, and pull-out groups that rely on students' performance level and interests.

Reality 6: Low-ability and average students tend to have higher self-esteem in grouped classrooms.

Reality 7: Achievement is enhanced when curriculum and instruction are slightly beyond the students' current performance.

Reality 8: Teacher expectations influence behavior more than grouping practice.

Reality 9: Discussions that require higher order thinking may "intimidate" or "alienate" lover level children.

These nine realities exposed by the article outline how, overall, grouped classrooms are advantageous for students performing at all levels.

However, some researchers have found evidence to the contrary, that grouping students according to ability can have detrimental effects. A study conducted by Lyle (1999) demonstrated results in support of heterogeneous grouping, but not homogeneous ability grouping. This study was based on interviews with two groups of primary school children after they completed a project in which the children were taught in mixed ability and mixed-gender groups with the purpose of improving their reading abilities. Through analysis of the children's comments, the authors argue that mixed-ability teaching provides a setting in which both low and high-achieving students benefit from and value the opportunity to work together. Moreover, interactions among peers can facilitate literacy development in individual students. Therefore, the potential benefits of maintaining a mixed ability classroom should not be ignored.

The question must be addressed as to how mixed-ability classrooms can be effective. Lyle (1999) explains how merely placing students around a table and expecting them to work does not result in successful learning. There is a range of factors involved in successful learning outcomes. A central factor is training in group-work skills, which can be achieved task structures that organize interaction and teach children to work cooperatively. It is of the utmost importance to provide stimulating material in order to engage the interest of students and ensure motivation. Lyle also purports that when children work successfully in collaborative groups, the exposure to each other's knowledge and experience facilitates both social and cognitive development. Furthermore, teachers need to adopt practices that allow children to use talk as a skill-development tool in collaborative settings. The interviews in this study by Lyle demonstrated that if children have control over their own learning in relation to classroom activities, they are able to take joint responsibility for their learning. Lyle concludes that the division of children into ability groups within classes, subjects, or streams, is a socially divisive practice that could lead to falling standards for students labelled as low achievers.

Another study demonstrating possible negative effects of sbility grouping was conducted by Suk Wai Wong & Watkins (2001). These researchers aimed to test the strength of the relationships between student self-esteem, and the ability group of the school band and class stream they attended, as well as their self-perceived academic performance. It should be noted that this study took place in Hong Kong, so it demonstrates results in a non-Western context. The results indicated that students who perceived their school performance as poor tended to have lower self-esteem than those who perceived themselves as performing better, which was a performance main effect. An interesting finding was that Students from within-school lower streams tended to have higher sel-esteem than students from higher streams, which was stream main effect. These findings suggest that while students from higher ability groups did report lower self-esteem than the lower ability group, school band had no effect. Furthermore, it was actual perceived academic performance that had the greatest effect on self-esteem.

The authors suggest that competitiveness plays a key role in the effects that ability grouping has on the self-esteem of students, and that, despite the current findings, simply eliminating ability grouping is probably not the answer. A balance must be struck in a competitive environment that will boost the self-esteem of able students, but will not destroy the self-esteem of lower ability children. Moreover, the authors maintain that the self-esteem of average ability students, especially those in the lower part of the ability spectrum, is most affected by ability grouping. They suggest that changes in the assessment system that reward students for individual improvement may be the most beneficial for average students.

There is a general consensus among the existing research that, at least to some extent, the practice of ability grouping is necessary. What factors are involved in successful grouping strategies? Lou et al. (2000) that the most important instructional predictors of the effects of small-group instruction are teacher training, grouping basis, and type of small group instruction. These researchers stress the importance of adequate training for teachers, so they are better able to adapt their teaching strategies accordingly, use appropriate teaching materials, change their roles to learning facilitators from knowledge dispensers, and employ effective group-learning strategies. Moreover, cooperative learning strategies such as individual accountability, small-group size, and increased opportunities for cognitive interaction can allow for more effective learning in group situations. Contrary to some findings presented previously, Lou et al. (2000) found that homogeneous ability grouping appeared to be more effective than heterogeneous grouping.

Opitz (1999) makes an argument for the effectiveness of flexible grouping in learning situations. Flexible grouping allows students to work in differently mixed groups depending on the goal of the learning task, and then to separate after the task is completed. These groups fulfill many purpose, including enabling students to use their strongest skills, promoting group interactions, and the instruction of specific skills. Opitz suggests several criteria that students could be grouped according to. The groupings can be chosen according to random assignment, specific social skills, interest, tasks, knowledge of a subject, skill or strategy, or student choice. The author explains how flexible grouping can take place throughout the school day to facilitate learning in all academic areas, and suggests that lessons begin and end with inclusion of the whole class in order to build a strong sense of community in the classroom.

Purpose of the study

With the array of studies conducted in the area of ability grouping, and the results demonstrating both support for and against the practice of grouping students, it is difficult to ascertain exactly which type of teaching situation is in the students' best interest. Although much of the available literature focuses on the needs of gifted children and how they benefit from different grouping situations, the experience of lower-ability children has not received adequate attention. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects that ability grouping has on students' academic achievement, self-esteem, self-efficacy for studying, and test anxiety, similar to the study conducted by Cheung & Rudowicz (2003), with a focus on students with lower ability.